The Collapse of Platonic Internationalism

Published:Sotsial-DemokratNo. 42, May 21, 1915.

      Published according to the text inSotsial-Demokrat.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[197[4]],

      Moscow,Volume 21,

      pages194-198.Translated:Transcription\Markup:D. WaltersandR. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      2003

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.

Wehave already pointed out (seeSotsial-DemokratNo. 41)[1]thatNashe Slovoshould at least come
out with a definite platform if it wishes its internationalism to be taken
seriously. As though in reply to us, No. 85 ofNashe Slovo(May
    9), published the resolution passed at a meeting of its Paris staff and
    contributors. “Two members of the editorial staff,” we are
    informed, “while in agreement with the general content of the
    resolution, declared they would submit a dissenting opinion on the
    organisational methods of the Party’s internal policy in
    Russia.” This resolution is a most noteworthy document of political
    bewilderment and ineptness.

Theword internationalism is reiterated time and again; “complete
      ideological divorcement from all the varieties of socialist
      nationalism” is announced, and the Stuttgart and Basle resolutions
      are quoted. The intentions are of the best, no doubt, but-it is all a mere
      phrase, since it is impossible and unnecessary to have a really
      “complete” divorcement from “all” extant varieties
      of social-nationalism, just as it is impossible and unnecessary to have a
      complete list of all the varieties of capitalist exploitation in order to
      become an enemy of capitalism. But it is necessary and possible to have an
      unmistakable line of cleavage with the main varieties, for instance, with
      that of Plekhanov, Potresov(Nashe Dyelo),the Build, Axelrod,
      and Kautsky. The resolution promises too much, but gives nothing; it
      threatens a complete cleavage with all varieties, but is afraid to mention
      by name at least the most significant of them.

Inthe British Parliament it is considered a discourtesy to call a man by
    his name, the practice being to speak onlyof the respective “Noble
    Lord” or of the “Honourable Member” for whatever
    constituency he may represent. What excellent Anglomaniacs, what highly
    refined diplomats theseNashe Slovopeople are! They evade the
    gist of the issue so gracefully, and are so polite when they provide their
    readers with formulas that serve to conceal their thoughts. They avow
    “friendship”(“Guizot in the flesh”, as one of
    Turgenev’s characters puts
it[3]) for all organisations
    “inasmuch as they apply... the principles of revolutionary
    internationalism”, but manifest “friendship” for those who
    do not apply those principles.

The“ideological divorcement” theNashe Slovopeople
    proclaim the more solemnly, the less willing and able they are to carry it
    out, must consist in explaining theorigin.of social-natibnalism,
    thesource ofits strength, and themeansto combat
    it. The social-nationalists do not call themselves, and do not admit to
    being, social-nationalists. They are bending, and are compelled to bend,
    every effort to hide behind a pseudonym, to throw dust in the eyes of the
    working masses, to cover up the traces of their links with opportunism, to
    conceal their betrayal, i.e., their having gone over in fact to the side of
    the bourgeoisie, and their alliance with the governments and the General
    Staffs. Grounding themselves on this alliance, and in control of all the
    important positions, the social-nationalists are, more than anybody else,
    clamouring for “unity” between the Social-Democratic parties and
    levelling the accusation of splitting tendencies, against all those who are
    opposed to opportunism. Consider, for instance, the latest official circular
    released by the Executive(Vorstand)of the German
    Social-Democratic Party and directed against journals that stand forgenuineinternationalism—Lichtstrahlen^^113^ andDie
    Internationale.[4]These journals did not have to avow
    either “friendship” for the revolutionaries or “complete
    ideological divorcement from all varieties of
    social-nationalism”. They just began with the divorcement, and done
    that in such a way that indeed “all varieties” of opportunists
    have raised a savage outcry, thus proving how squarely the arrows have hit
    the mark.

Butwhat aboutNashe Slovo?

Itis rising up against social-nationalism, while still on bended knees
    before it, since it has failed to unmask the mostdangerous defenders of
    this bourgeois current (such as Kautsky); it has not declared war against
    opportunism, but, on the contrary, has kept silent about it; it has not
    taken or indicated any real steps towards liberating socialism from its
    disgraceful patriotic fetters. By stating that neither unity nor a break
    with those who joined the bourgeoisie is imperative,Nashe Slovohas in fact surrendered to the opportunists, while at the same time making a
    fine gesture, which can be interpreted as meaning either that it is
    threatening the opportunists with its dreadful ire, or that it is waving a
    hand to them. Were the really deft opportunists, who have a fine
    appreciation of a blend of Left phrases and moderate practice, compelled to
    make reply to theNashe Siovoresolution, they would most probably
    say something similar to the statement made by the two staff members,
    namely, that they are in agreement with the “general
    content”(because they are certainly not social-nationalists, Oh, no!);
    as for the “organisational methods of the Party’s internal
    policy” they will, in due course, submit, a “dissenting
    opinion”. They run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.

Whenit had to deal with Russia, however,Nashe Slovo’ssubtle diplomacy proved abortive.

“Partyunification in the conditions of the previous period proved
    impossible in Russia,” says the resolution, which should be understood
    as meaning that unification of the working-class party with a group of
    legalist liquidators proved impossible. This is oblique recognition of the
    collapse of the Brussels bloc, which was formed to save the liquidators. Whyis Nashe Siovoafraid openly to recognise this collapse? Why is it
    afraid openly to make the causes of this collapse clear to the workers? Is
    it not because the bloc’s collapse has proved the actual falseness of
    the policy pursued by all its members? Is it not becauseNashe Slovowishes to preserve “friendship” with two (at least two)
    “varieties” of social- nationalism, namely, with the Bundists and
    the Organising Committee (A.xelrod) both of whom have made press statements
    about their plans and their hopes to resurect the Brussels bloc?

“Thenew conditions... are cutting the ground from under the feet
    of the old groups ....”

Isnot the reverse true? Far from eliminating liquidationism, the new
    conditions have not even shaken its basicnucleus(Nasha Zarya),notwithstanding all personal vacillations and changes of front. They have
    deepened and aggravated differences with that nucleus, since, besides being
    liquidationist, it has also turned social-nationalist!Nashe Slovoevades the question of liquidationism, which it finds so unpleasant; the old
    is being undermined by the new, it asserts, but it is silent about thenew ground,the social-nationalist,under the feet of the
    old...liquidationism! What ridiculous shiftiness! We shall say
    nothing aboutNasha Zarycbecause it is no more, and nothing aboutNashe Dyelo, probably because Potresov, Cherevanin, Maslov and Co. may
    be regarded in the political sense, as babes in arms.

Itis not only Potresov and Co., but themselves as well that theNash
    Slovoeditors would regard as babes in arms. Listen to this:

“Facedby the fact that the factional and inter-factional groupings
    created in the past serve, even at the present transitional moment, as the
    only [!} centres for the organisational unification, however imperfect, of
    the advanced workers,Nashe Slovois of the opinion that the
    interests of its main activities in uniting the internationalists exclude
    both organisational submission of the paper, directly or indirectly, to any
    one of the old party groupings, and artificial unification of its
    fellow-thinkers into a separate group politically opposed to the old
    groupings.”

Whatdoes this mean? How is it to be taken?Inasmuch asthe new
    conditions are undermining the old groupings, they recognise the latter as
    the only genuine ones!Inasmuch asthe new conditions demand a new
    grouping, not on liquidationist principles, but on internationalism, they
    reject as “artificial” any unification of internationalists. This
    is the very acme of political impotence!

Aftertwo hundred days of propaganda of internationalism,Nashe Slovohas acknowledged its complete political bankruptcy. It wants neither
    “submission” to the old groupings (why so fear-stricken a word as
    “submission”? Why not “adhesion”,
    “support”, “solidarity with”?), nor the creation of
    new ones. We shall go on living in the old way, it says, in liquidationist
    groupings; we shall “submit” to them, while usingNashe
    Slovoas a blatant signboard, or regarding it as a promenade through
    the leafy gardens ofinternationalist phraseology. TheNashe Slovowriters will do the writing, while Nashe Slovo readers will do the
    reading.[5]

Fortwo hundred days these people were talking of uniting the
    internationalists, only to arrive at conclusion that they could unite
    nobody, not even themselves, the editors and staff ofNashe Slovo,and to proclaim that unification “artificial”. What a fillip for
    Potresov, the Bundists, and Axeirod! And what adroit deception of the
    workers! On the surface, resonant internationalist phrases from a truly
    non-factionalNashe Slovothat has thrown off the old and outworn
    groupings; in fact, however, the old groupings are the
    “only” points of unity.

NasheSlovo’sideological and political bankruptcy which
    it now admits, is no accident, but the inevitable result of vain attempts to
    shrug off, in word, the actual alignment of forces. In the working-class
    movement of Russia this alignment expresses itself in the struggle of the
    liquidationist and social-patriotic trend(Nashe Dyelo)against
    the Marxist Social-Democratic Labour Party, which has been restored by the
    January 1912
Conference,[6]strengthened by the elections, in the worker
    curia, to the Fourth Duma, consolidated by the Pravdist papers of 1912-14,
    and represented by the Russian Social-Democratic Labour group in the
    Duma. This Partyhas continuedits struggle against the bourgeois
    trend of liquidationism by combating the no less bourgeois trend of
    social-patriotism. The correctness of the line of this Party, our Party, has
    been borne out by the vast and historic experience of the European war, and
    by the exiguous and lender experience of the latest, the one thousand and
    first non-factional attempt at unification on the part ofNashe
    Slovo:this  attempt has suffered a fiasco, thereby confirming the
    resolution of the Berne Conference(Sotsial-DemokratNo. 40)
    concerning “platonic”
internationalists.[2]

Genuineinternationalists will wish neither to remain in the old
    liquidationist groupings (concealing this from the workers) nor to stand
    outside of the groupings. They will come to our Party.

[1]Seepp. 188–91of this volume.—Ed.

[2]Seepp. 163–164of this
    volume—Ed.

[3]Thereference is to the Governor of the town of S., a character in
    Turgenev’s storyVirgin Soil.

[4]DieIntiernationale—a journal founded by Rosa Luxemburg and Franz
    Mehring. Only one issue appeared, in Berlin, April 1915. It resumed
    publication in Munich in 1922 under the name ofFuturus.

[5]Thisrefers
    to the phrase in Saltykov-Shchedrin’s “Miscellaneous
    Letters”—the writing is the business of the writer; the
    reader’s
      job is to do the reading.

[6]Thisrefers
    to the Sixth (Prague) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P., which took
    place in Prague on January 5-17 (18-30),